Jonathan

We may do.
And if we are strong and make the principal squirm, we are excessed. I speak from experience.

There is nothing set up in this contract (and many of the former contracts as well) that protects union members with contrarian opinions in such collaborative sessions from punishment — even career-breaking punishment — when a principal or a superintendent perceives that member as unwilling to either bootlick or toe the line.

the UFT is putting such ideas into action … Frankly, these kinds of policies are more in keeping with Fordham’s long history of support for school autonomy than their report’s district-enhancing recommendations.

True. And troubling.

For years the UFT has supported shared decision making in various forms. And for years the Board of Ed (now Dept of Ed) has agreed, set up collaboration, and abused it.

Do you know what a C-30 committee is? Administrators hired with teacher input. Except, its usually 0 input.

School Leadership Teams? DoE instructs principals in a new Chancellor’s Reg to, essentially, ignore them. I think my union was supposed to join a law suit stopping this. Maybe we have.

The schoolwide merit pay. We’ll see what happens, but I am nervous about sitting two teachers (and why did we say they didn’t have to be union members) across from their rating officer to decide how to divide up $$$.

And the small schools of the last few years? Laboratories for collaboration, right? Hasn’t worked out that way in too many of these places. Our Small Schools Task force concluded that their effectiveness needs to examined before opening more. But here’s more missing collaboration – they just ignore us and open more and more.

Related topic: the collaboration in those small schools? How about this one (with over 50% annual turnover). Or this one (just as bad). Awful exceptions? No, just the worst of a mostly bad lot.

And the decentralization? Accompanied by the installation of rootless, experience-free puppet principals?

Time after time our attempts to collaborate with the DoE have been accepted as signs of weakness, as invitations to abuse teachers.

Theoretically, a few of the ideas are vaguely interesting. But teachers don’t teach theoretically.

Jonathan

the UFT is putting such ideas into action … Frankly, these kinds of policies are more in keeping with Fordham’s long history of support for school autonomy than their report’s district-enhancing recommendations.

True. And troubling.

For years the UFT has supported shared decision making in various forms. And for years the Board of Ed (now Dept of Ed) has agreed, set up collaboration, and abused it.

Do you know what a C-30 committee is? Administrators hired with teacher input. Except, its usually 0 input.

School Leadership Teams? DoE instructs principals in a new Chancellor’s Reg to, essentially, ignore them. I think my union was supposed to join a law suit stopping this. Maybe we have.

The schoolwide merit pay. We’ll see what happens, but I am nervous about sitting two teachers (and why did we say they didn’t have to be union members) across from their rating officer to decide how to divide up $$$.

And the small schools of the last few years? Laboratories for collaboration, right? Hasn’t worked out that way in too many of these places. Our Small Schools Task force concluded that their effectiveness needs to examined before opening more. But here’s more missing collaboration – they just ignore us and open more and more.

Related topic: the collaboration in those small schools? How about (with over 50% annual turnover). Or (just as bad). Awful exceptions? No, just the worst of a mostly bad lot.

Theoretically, a few of the ideas are vaguely interesting. But teachers don’t teach theoretically.

The monthly UFT consultation that the principal is required to attend, that’s different. That’s a form of “collaboration” if you will that comes from our (historic) strength. That’s a discussion where we are not at an automatic disadvantage, where we set the agenda.

Jonathan